https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176293 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 CPC is limited to correcting a clear and manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. The court found that the earlier judgment had already addressed the challenge to admission of additional evidence, alleged bias of the Inquiry Officer, and the complaint of non-supply of findings, with the record showing notice and opportunity to respond and no established bias. The review petition therefore sought a reappraisal of concluded findings rather than correction of a patent error, and was not maintainable on the grounds urged. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2015 19:55:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176293 Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 CPC is limited to correcting a clear and manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. The court found that the earlier judgment had already addressed the challenge to admission of additional evidence, alleged bias of the Inquiry Officer, and the complaint of non-supply of findings, with the record showing notice and opportunity to respond and no established bias. The review petition therefore sought a reappraisal of concluded findings rather than correction of a patent error, and was not maintainable on the grounds urged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176293